1. Title, director and release year?
Coal Country, Phylis Geller, 2009
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film is about the cheap, abundant energy resource we use everyday called coal. It is particularly concerned with the collection revolution coal industries have undergone through evolving cultivation techniques through the highly destructive process of mountain top removal. Traditionally, coal mining was a very slow, labor intensive process yet now in the age of technology explosives and CAT machinery are used to literally blast the resource from the mountain. This process affords less labor costs and a much quicker collection of the resource. The film shows countless images of mountain ranges destroyed as valleys are filled with top debris, a post-coal mountain plateau. Yet beyond the obvious pollution and destruction of biodiversity the explosions incur, the film discusses the political and corporate regulations and motives to control and sustain this business. We also understand how citizens, activists, and pro-coal workers have participated in fighting for or against this overbearing industry.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
After viewing this film, the two predominate issues that stick out to me are of ecological and economical concern. First, mountain top removal is an ecological nightmare. Blowing up mountains takes seconds, while mountain building occurs over hundreds of millions of years. I can't seem to put together how destroying mountain ranges is a logical and justified decision based entirely off receiving short term cost benefits. Mountain top removal destroys the natural ecosystem and biodiversity of the area, disperses coal ash and dust into the atmosphere to rain down onto homes and civilians, and results in valley filling and the highly toxic and shaky construction of coal slurry lakes. Reclamation inefficiencies reflect some of the legal, corporate and political issues of mountain top removal. Coal companies by law are required to restore all mountain sites after the coal is extracted yet many sites are left abandoned hills of dust and loose debris. Even those companies that do restore the sites end up destroying biodiversity and creating an entirely new and unnatural ecosystem for the area. Planting spruce trees along a shallow hill is hardly a justified replacement for destroying an entire mountain.
A lawyer from the film discussed legal difficulties through legislation wordings from which coal companies have found a way to avoid defining the coal blasting and cleaning by products as waste. This working of legislative works prevented coal companies from following regulations. We understand later in the film even that rulings to further regulate coal companies experience enforcement issues.
The film also shares some of senator Rockafeller's changing position on mountain top removal based on his voter reactions. The lawyer from the film stated political compliance with the coal industry as the "cost of admission into politics." In his earlier campagins Rockafeller promised the abolition of strip mining as his major platform for election. Clips from the film show him stating it is not a good economic future for West Virginia, that whatever advantage it has now, the damage lingers forever. Yet somehow his economic analysis changed and Rockafeller now supports coal mining companies. This need to comply with the most powerful trends for political gains is an external factor accentuates coal mining damage and eliminates the effect of activist groups in Washington.
I have been aware for a while now of the ecological and health hazards of mountain top removal yet this film was the first compelling presentation of the economical sustainability problems of the industry. Southern West Virginia and Kentucky are prisoners to this economic cycle of coal equaling poverty. (I talk more about this in the next section).
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? Scattered images of mountain blasting, throwing mountain debris and dust into the air were extremely compelling and captivating scenes from the film. Aerial views of flattened out mountain ranges resembling mini golf courses were tragic. One helicopter rider was in tears stating "last week it was all green," commenting on the ridiculous impact just one day of mountain blasting can have. The shortsightedness of coal blasting companies and advocates amazes me. "Coal is Cheap" statements overlook all the environmental, health, social, economic impacts of this destructive obsession we have with getting things fast and getting them cheap.
Perhaps the most compelling statement throughout the entire film was presented by a young male town member during a community meeting attended by pro-coal and pro-mountain advocates. The young man comments on the poverty cycle coal companies have created in West Virginia. Coal employees advocate coal companies simply because they need a job, they need the work. In his argument the young man says "it's the only job in town...southern West Virginia is the poorest part....You see mining and flipping burgers [as the only two jobs in town] and mining companies want it that way...That's how they have their business, this would never happen in the Rocky Mountains." Coal companies sustain and progress the extremely poor economic climate in West Virginia. They ensure, through various externalities that this area, absolutely lucrative in resources feels only the burden and just about no positive impact from the natural endowment. Yet the town is trapped in this cycle since this is the way of life for these people. They system is such a part of their lives that they cannot see over it's walls. Coal companies provide jobs yet the area is still in server poverty while citizen health is at grave risk and the environmental biosphere completely destroyed. Property values are absolutely nothing, all these people have is now worth nothing. The ex-coal miner's home he built with his father is an absolutely tragic story originally valued at 90,000 it's now only worth 12,000. The home he had planned to live in the rest of his life, for his children to live in as well, shares its backyard with a large white biodome used to keep toxic coal dust from raining on people. It has already broken three times distributing highly concentrated amounts of stored coal dust over homes, cars, children to remain in the air for days after. So when this white balloon isn't glaring down on homes, obstructing views of mountain sides between treelines, and causing nearly complete depletion of property values it spends its time tearing apart and releasing the emissions it was so designed to contain.
After the third dome leak coal companies were required to set up testing stations or dust monitoring stations to track air contamination levels. It is just about the least scientific looking data collection mechanism I have ever seen. An open glass jar with about a quarter cup of yellowish water placed at the top of the lamp post for anyone to disturb or alter the sample, somehow satisfies a court ruling. The two women living on that street say they have never seen anyone collect the samples nor have they received any reported results. How is it that a court ruling requirement goes so unregulated that it can simply and with zero consequences just be ignored? Once again, if this were the Rocky Mountains some agency would be ensuring the samples are checked and the scientific results are distributed known and if found too high, remediation would occur.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? I was less compelled by the criticisms of carbon mineral sequestration as a viable alternative to storing the CO2 emissions from burning coal. Carbon mineral sequestration is a scientifically accepted technique yet critics from the film claim the "don't believe in it." It is a proven process for using the same pressures and energies from drilling fossil fuels to place CO2 back into the ground. I got as frustrated from that statement as I do from those of people not "believing" in global warming. I don't quite understand how scientific patterns and evidence all pointing to a relative warming is a principle one can choose to believe or not believe in.
The real interesting arguments surrounding carbon mineral sequestration is whether this is really a step forwards or backwards. Increased spending or tax cuts for sequestering co2 back into the earth would take away from renewable energy fundings. Should we be spending money building plants to sequester co2 (short term solution) or should we be spending that money towards solar, wind, geothermal renewable energy research and plant production? I believe it should be the latter yet many argue that co2 sequestration is a positive step forward or transition into renewable energy. Whereas i see the additional spending and tax incentives likely to partner along with it as a crutch for renewable resource development. I was disappointed with the film's presentation of this issue and it's lack to present the interesting controversies of the debate for the film to really be considered as a "go fix it."
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.? I really want to know what the towns' local governments are doing to fight for the rights (to health) of their community members. As we saw through the stories of local activists reaching out to state senators is too far removed, as Judy stated they could care less about southern West Virginia. The town needs local political representation presenting "This is what is going on in the community I govern...And look here are all the adverse health effects, we are stating to see trends forming...Look at the people of this community, they are prisoners in the poor economic cycle spun by coal companies!!" Someone with political power and a local interest needs to say this. It's curious the film never presented any local governmental figures, I wonder if there are any or if they care...
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? I think this film is suitable for any and all viewers. Energy is a hot issue that most Americans are familiar with. We've all seen clean coal claims and I'm sure many citizens (including myself) don't have too good of an idea of exactly how coal is collected,and converted to energy. For those reasons I believe the film to be of high educational value and interest for viewers. I'm not sure whether or not the film is likely to change the way people act towards environmental problems. We understand the struggles and some of the successful coalitions generated by the local communities yet we do not understand their struggles completely on a personal level like we did in the film Forest for the Trees. I would argue because viewers become much more emotionally invested in Judi Bari's story it was likely to motivate some viewers to act. Yet this film presented many different activists from different areas, all experiencing the same hardships and fighting together for a change, yet there was less of a personal level to the story. That being said i'm sure the film did compel some to act, yet I'm not sure the call to action was as effective as the informative "wow factor" of the film.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? Through the stories of numerous community activists of all ages, the film inspires and invites viewers to stand up and speak up. It leaves the viewer with the message to "lead and inspire people." That the United States is a leader and we can lead the way to renewable energy. An activist makes a powerful quote " Stand up, you cannot stop me from speaking."
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? I would have liked to learn a little more about the exact process coal companies undergo from blasting coal to the necessary processing to use coal as energy- an analysis of the cradle to grave of coal energy. The film briefly discussed the process of chemical washing used to remove “impurities” from coal. The process leaves these impurities in streams as waste where it is then impounded to a lake located in the crook between two mountains. These impoundments contain hundreds of millions of gallons of coal slurry. These gallons of coal slurry doesn't even count what’s in underground injection sites. I found this process interesting to understand especially when determining the slew of sustainability issues mountain top removal incurs upon a community.
1. Title, director and release year?
Coal Country, Phylis Geller, 2009
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film is about the cheap, abundant energy resource we use everyday called coal. It is particularly concerned with the collection revolution coal industries have undergone through evolving cultivation techniques through the highly destructive process of mountain top removal. Traditionally, coal mining was a very slow, labor intensive process yet now in the age of technology explosives and CAT machinery are used to literally blast the resource from the mountain. This process affords less labor costs and a much quicker collection of the resource. The film shows countless images of mountain ranges destroyed as valleys are filled with top debris, a post-coal mountain plateau. Yet beyond the obvious pollution and destruction of biodiversity the explosions incur, the film discusses the political and corporate regulations and motives to control and sustain this business. We also understand how citizens, activists, and pro-coal workers have participated in fighting for or against this overbearing industry.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
After viewing this film, the two predominate issues that stick out to me are of ecological and economical concern. First, mountain top removal is an ecological nightmare. Blowing up mountains takes seconds, while mountain building occurs over hundreds of millions of years. I can't seem to put together how destroying mountain ranges is a logical and justified decision based entirely off receiving short term cost benefits. Mountain top removal destroys the natural ecosystem and biodiversity of the area, disperses coal ash and dust into the atmosphere to rain down onto homes and civilians, and results in valley filling and the highly toxic and shaky construction of coal slurry lakes. Reclamation inefficiencies reflect some of the legal, corporate and political issues of mountain top removal. Coal companies by law are required to restore all mountain sites after the coal is extracted yet many sites are left abandoned hills of dust and loose debris. Even those companies that do restore the sites end up destroying biodiversity and creating an entirely new and unnatural ecosystem for the area. Planting spruce trees along a shallow hill is hardly a justified replacement for destroying an entire mountain.
A lawyer from the film discussed legal difficulties through legislation wordings from which coal companies have found a way to avoid defining the coal blasting and cleaning by products as waste. This working of legislative works prevented coal companies from following regulations. We understand later in the film even that rulings to further regulate coal companies experience enforcement issues.
The film also shares some of senator Rockafeller's changing position on mountain top removal based on his voter reactions. The lawyer from the film stated political compliance with the coal industry as the "cost of admission into politics." In his earlier campagins Rockafeller promised the abolition of strip mining as his major platform for election. Clips from the film show him stating it is not a good economic future for West Virginia, that whatever advantage it has now, the damage lingers forever. Yet somehow his economic analysis changed and Rockafeller now supports coal mining companies. This need to comply with the most powerful trends for political gains is an external factor accentuates coal mining damage and eliminates the effect of activist groups in Washington.
I have been aware for a while now of the ecological and health hazards of mountain top removal yet this film was the first compelling presentation of the economical sustainability problems of the industry. Southern West Virginia and Kentucky are prisoners to this economic cycle of coal equaling poverty. (I talk more about this in the next section).
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Scattered images of mountain blasting, throwing mountain debris and dust into the air were extremely compelling and captivating scenes from the film. Aerial views of flattened out mountain ranges resembling mini golf courses were tragic. One helicopter rider was in tears stating "last week it was all green," commenting on the ridiculous impact just one day of mountain blasting can have. The shortsightedness of coal blasting companies and advocates amazes me. "Coal is Cheap" statements overlook all the environmental, health, social, economic impacts of this destructive obsession we have with getting things fast and getting them cheap.
Perhaps the most compelling statement throughout the entire film was presented by a young male town member during a community meeting attended by pro-coal and pro-mountain advocates. The young man comments on the poverty cycle coal companies have created in West Virginia. Coal employees advocate coal companies simply because they need a job, they need the work. In his argument the young man says "it's the only job in town...southern West Virginia is the poorest part....You see mining and flipping burgers [as the only two jobs in town] and mining companies want it that way...That's how they have their business, this would never happen in the Rocky Mountains." Coal companies sustain and progress the extremely poor economic climate in West Virginia. They ensure, through various externalities that this area, absolutely lucrative in resources feels only the burden and just about no positive impact from the natural endowment. Yet the town is trapped in this cycle since this is the way of life for these people. They system is such a part of their lives that they cannot see over it's walls. Coal companies provide jobs yet the area is still in server poverty while citizen health is at grave risk and the environmental biosphere completely destroyed. Property values are absolutely nothing, all these people have is now worth nothing. The ex-coal miner's home he built with his father is an absolutely tragic story originally valued at 90,000 it's now only worth 12,000. The home he had planned to live in the rest of his life, for his children to live in as well, shares its backyard with a large white biodome used to keep toxic coal dust from raining on people. It has already broken three times distributing highly concentrated amounts of stored coal dust over homes, cars, children to remain in the air for days after. So when this white balloon isn't glaring down on homes, obstructing views of mountain sides between treelines, and causing nearly complete depletion of property values it spends its time tearing apart and releasing the emissions it was so designed to contain.
After the third dome leak coal companies were required to set up testing stations or dust monitoring stations to track air contamination levels. It is just about the least scientific looking data collection mechanism I have ever seen. An open glass jar with about a quarter cup of yellowish water placed at the top of the lamp post for anyone to disturb or alter the sample, somehow satisfies a court ruling. The two women living on that street say they have never seen anyone collect the samples nor have they received any reported results. How is it that a court ruling requirement goes so unregulated that it can simply and with zero consequences just be ignored? Once again, if this were the Rocky Mountains some agency would be ensuring the samples are checked and the scientific results are distributed known and if found too high, remediation would occur.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was less compelled by the criticisms of carbon mineral sequestration as a viable alternative to storing the CO2 emissions from burning coal. Carbon mineral sequestration is a scientifically accepted technique yet critics from the film claim the "don't believe in it." It is a proven process for using the same pressures and energies from drilling fossil fuels to place CO2 back into the ground. I got as frustrated from that statement as I do from those of people not "believing" in global warming. I don't quite understand how scientific patterns and evidence all pointing to a relative warming is a principle one can choose to believe or not believe in.
The real interesting arguments surrounding carbon mineral sequestration is whether this is really a step forwards or backwards. Increased spending or tax cuts for sequestering co2 back into the earth would take away from renewable energy fundings. Should we be spending money building plants to sequester co2 (short term solution) or should we be spending that money towards solar, wind, geothermal renewable energy research and plant production? I believe it should be the latter yet many argue that co2 sequestration is a positive step forward or transition into renewable energy. Whereas i see the additional spending and tax incentives likely to partner along with it as a crutch for renewable resource development. I was disappointed with the film's presentation of this issue and it's lack to present the interesting controversies of the debate for the film to really be considered as a "go fix it."
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I really want to know what the towns' local governments are doing to fight for the rights (to health) of their community members. As we saw through the stories of local activists reaching out to state senators is too far removed, as Judy stated they could care less about southern West Virginia. The town needs local political representation presenting "This is what is going on in the community I govern...And look here are all the adverse health effects, we are stating to see trends forming...Look at the people of this community, they are prisoners in the poor economic cycle spun by coal companies!!" Someone with political power and a local interest needs to say this. It's curious the film never presented any local governmental figures, I wonder if there are any or if they care...
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think this film is suitable for any and all viewers. Energy is a hot issue that most Americans are familiar with. We've all seen clean coal claims and I'm sure many citizens (including myself) don't have too good of an idea of exactly how coal is collected,and converted to energy. For those reasons I believe the film to be of high educational value and interest for viewers. I'm not sure whether or not the film is likely to change the way people act towards environmental problems. We understand the struggles and some of the successful coalitions generated by the local communities yet we do not understand their struggles completely on a personal level like we did in the film Forest for the Trees. I would argue because viewers become much more emotionally invested in Judi Bari's story it was likely to motivate some viewers to act. Yet this film presented many different activists from different areas, all experiencing the same hardships and fighting together for a change, yet there was less of a personal level to the story. That being said i'm sure the film did compel some to act, yet I'm not sure the call to action was as effective as the informative "wow factor" of the film.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
Through the stories of numerous community activists of all ages, the film inspires and invites viewers to stand up and speak up. It leaves the viewer with the message to "lead and inspire people." That the United States is a leader and we can lead the way to renewable energy. An activist makes a powerful quote " Stand up, you cannot stop me from speaking."
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I would have liked to learn a little more about the exact process coal companies undergo from blasting coal to the necessary processing to use coal as energy- an analysis of the cradle to grave of coal energy. The film briefly discussed the process of chemical washing used to remove “impurities” from coal. The process leaves these impurities in streams as waste where it is then impounded to a lake located in the crook between two mountains. These impoundments contain hundreds of millions of gallons of coal slurry. These gallons of coal slurry doesn't even count what’s in underground injection sites. I found this process interesting to understand especially when determining the slew of sustainability issues mountain top removal incurs upon a community.